Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[Sanku]

Wonderful Peter, many thanks.

[Murugan]

Story of Iron and Indian Swords

http://met.iisc.ernet.in/~rangu/text.pdf

runs in 90 pages

[Airavat]

The army of Harshvardhana

The array contained contingents of cavalry-detachments commanded by their own Rajput leaders. There is no description of the cavalcade of the Royal seraglio which formed so conspicuous a section of the Mogul army on march as described by Manucci. Probably Harsha was unmarried at this time, that is, when he started for his digvijaya and no sergalio hampered his movements. Having arrived at the next halting place Harsha dismissed his attendant princes at the gate of the royal enclosure and is shown to have entered it alone.

There does not appear to have been any mercenary forces in the army of Harsha. It consisted generally of Rajputs and other lower castes of the king's country. The Kulaputras ( or relatives of the kingly family or king's clansmen ) seem to have always been of importance. What they represent in modern times we cannot exactly say. (Perhaps they are the modern Bhaiband of Rajput states). Each arm had its commander, and the whole was under the commander-in-chief.

It consisted of foot, horse and elephant. The fourth arm, the chariot is mentioned no doubt by Hiuen Tsang but probably he here mentions the conventional four arms or chaturanga of the Indian army. Bana describes most minutely the army of Harsha and we find no mention therein of the chariot. Hiuen Tsang also does not mention chariots when he details the strength of Harsha's army. The elephant was from ancient days the most formidable arm of the Indian forces. Foreigners feared Indian armies for the elephant corps. Elephants were then what artillery is now-a-days in Europe. And the greater the number of elephants, the greater was the power of the army in much the same way as the greater the number of cannon in modern armies, the greater is their power of destruction. These numerous elephants were supplied by the immense forests fringing the Himalayas and the Vindhyas as already mentioned.

The cavalry came next. India supplied the horses required, but Indian horses were ranked lower than horses imported from Persia, Arabia and Afghanistan. In the training and raising of horses the same pitch of excellence had been attained in India as in that of the elephants. The marks of a good horse, the nature of his diseases and the modes of treating them are detailed with fullness in the treatises of Salihotra, some of whose principles are referred to even in Bana's Harsha Charita. Strangely enough, Bana mentions the grooms to be always Chandalas.

The infantry came the last as it was not counted of much value. The soldiers were armed with bucklers and swords. The foot archer does not seem to be a prominent feature of the Indian army in Harsha's days, though the riders on elephants usually used the bow and the arrow. Every prince and Rajput appears to have practised archery. Bana's description of Harsha, Rajya, Kumara, Madhava and others mentions their wrists and arms as blackened by the constant drawing of the bow.

[Virendra]

There is a lot said about the lack of archers and artillery in Indian Kingdoms warfare art during medieval era. It seems the diversification out of over dependence on Elephants and cavalry was missing.
I was reading "India's historic battles: from Alexander the great to Kargil" - Kaushik Roy

Quote
"No agrarian society was able to stop the nomadic horse mounted archers. Tarain, in a way, was the repetition of Manzikert.
At the battle of Manzikert fought in AD 1071 in Turkey the western Turkish horse archers were able through skirmishing tactics to destroy the Byzantine empire's heavy cavalry, which like the Rajput cavalry, was armed with lances and swords."

Regards,
Virendra

[Rahul M]

kaushik roy's opinions are usually rather cliched and his opinions simplistic but in this case they are closer to the truth. of course, he fails to mention that the rajputs gave a pretty tough fight for a long time, much more so than the byzantines.

[Yagnasri]

The weakend Byzantines with a 1000 plus years of fighting with Persia and Muslims and attacked from Vatican and western Europeans, with no trade etc to create wealth is a easy prey for Muslims. The kept hanging on as long as they could. I do not think they ever had any significant force of any kind in field against Turks.

[Virendra]

he fails to mention that the rajputs gave a pretty tough fight for a long time, much more so than the byzantines.

Of that there is no doubt (otherwise the Indian demography would've been a drastically different one, given the Islamic doctrines).
But learning from the mistakes is equally important The first step is to unearth them and introspect.
I'm looking forward to some comments on the military-technical side. May be Airavat can pitch in.

Regards,
Virendra

[peter]

[..] quote from Kaushik roy:
No agrarian society was able to stop the nomadic horse mounted archers. Tarain, in a way, was the repetition of Manzikert.

kaushik roy's opinions are usually rather cliched and his opinions simplistic but in this case they are closer to the truth. of course, he fails to mention that the rajputs gave a pretty tough fight for a long time, much more so than the byzantines.

My question is if Kaushik Roy is correct then:
a) Why did Prithviraj win at the first battle of Tarain?
b) Did Ghori's forces not have mounted archers for the first battle?
c) Did the Chauhan army employ tactics which negated the archers? If so then why could'nt the same/similar tactics be employed the second time?
d) How many battles were fought between mounted archers and rajputs (assuming for a minute rajputs did not use bow and arrow cavalry) in which archers won? Lost?

Does Kaushik's thinking represent uninformed analysis?

[peter]

The army of Harshvardhana

The array contained contingents of cavalry-detachments commanded by their own Rajput leaders. [.......]

What is the total strength of Harsha's cavalry? I am sure you recall that we have had discussions on this forum that Indians did not field large cavalries prior to them "learning this technique" from the invaders!

[peter]

Wonderful Peter, many thanks.

Interestingly recently I discovered, not sure if it is true though, that Surtan Deora of Sirohi actually gave sanctuary to Maharana Pratap immediately after Idar (post Haldighati) was attacked by Akbar the Great. There is a strong tradition of certain caves being used by Pratap and his entourage in Sirohi region. I wonder if someone has more info on this.

[Will]

Its an outgrowth of the Sultanate strategy of isolating Hindu kingdoms by using their differences on minor things land take them over later on.

Well what can one say. The biggest drawback of us Indians is that we have never been able to see further than our nose. All powers have played us against ourselves and laughed all the way to the bank. The only good thing that probably came out of British rule, even though our country was partioned, is that today we are one country which we probably never were before.

[Prem]

Its an outgrowth of the Sultanate strategy of isolating Hindu kingdoms by using their differences on minor things land take them over later on.

Well what can one say. The biggest drawback of us Indians is that we have never been able to see further than our nose. All powers have played us against ourselves and laughed all the way to the bank. The only good thing that probably came out of British rule, even though our country was partioned, is that today we are one country which we probably never were before.

Check the sikh history String ! Jashne Bahara going on stressing upon the differences instead of commonality.

[Virendra]

My question is if Kaushik Roy is correct then:
a) Why did Prithviraj win at the first battle of Tarain?
b) Did Ghori's forces not have mounted archers for the first battle?
c) Did the Chauhan army employ tactics which negated the archers? If so then why could'nt the same/similar tactics be employed the second time?
d) How many battles were fought between mounted archers and rajputs (assuming for a minute rajputs did not use bow and arrow cavalry) in which archers won? Lost?

Does Kaushik's thinking represent uninformed analysis?

The results of both occasions are vastly different and each side soundly defeated the other at least once.
It indicates that the warring infrastructure & tactics of at least one side underwent a massive change, between Tarain I and Tarain II. Exactly the same weapons, battle site and armies are unlikely to produce completely opposite results like that.

Does anyone have a detailed comparison to offer?

Regards,
Virendra

[Lalmohan]

most analysis shows that indian armies fighting on terrain of their choice and able to maintain their formations and fight a static battle where they could not be outflanked were usually unbeatable. if the indian army broke formation - either as a result of pressure or to pursue the enemy then faster more mobile opponents could turn the tables and inflict defeats.

[Virendra]

most analysis shows that indian armies fighting on terrain of their choice and able to maintain their formations and fight a static battle where they could not be outflanked were usually unbeatable. if the indian army broke formation - either as a result of pressure or to pursue the enemy then faster more mobile opponents could turn the tables and inflict defeats.

I always wanted to understand if there were any military tactical reasons for Indian armies to NOT engage in long committed pursuits; or was it just an inherent cultural, philosophical trait that fleeing enemy should not be striked upon.
So could you post any examples where the Indian armies pursured a fleeing invader and got into trouble? If that is what you wanted to say.

Regards,
Virendra

[Sanku]

It indicates that the warring infrastructure & tactics of at least one side underwent a massive change, between Tarain I and Tarain II.

That is impossible, the time period was far too short.

Between Tarain I & II, following differences have been noted

1) Prithviraj Chauhan's forces were dispersed around his kingdom on other battles/exercises and could not join the battle in time.

2) Ghori had time to stabilize and marshal his forces.

A balance of forces was far more likely to change in the short term.

[peter]

My question is if Kaushik Roy is correct then:
a) Why did Prithviraj win at the first battle of Tarain?
b) Did Ghori's forces not have mounted archers for the first battle?
c) Did the Chauhan army employ tactics which negated the archers? If so then why could'nt the same/similar tactics be employed the second time?
d) How many battles were fought between mounted archers and rajputs (assuming for a minute rajputs did not use bow and arrow cavalry) in which archers won? Lost?

Does Kaushik's thinking represent uninformed analysis?

The results of both occasions are vastly different and each side soundly defeated the other at least once.
It indicates that the warring infrastructure & tactics of at least one side underwent a massive change, between Tarain I and Tarain II.

Not quite. The reasons for the loss at the second battle are very different than those for the victory during the first battle at Taraori. And it has got nothing to do with archers or any millitary technical advantage that Ghurids had. Some info from earlier discussions: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=680

[Airavat]

Yes we've had all these discussions before.

I always wanted to understand if there were any military tactical reasons for Indian armies to NOT engage in long committed pursuits; or was it just an inherent cultural, philosophical trait that fleeing enemy should not be striked upon.
So could you post any examples where the Indian armies pursured a fleeing invader and got into trouble? If that is what you wanted to say.

Regards,
Virendra

Mughal campaign in Central Asia 1646-48: Jadunath Sarkar

Delhi sultanate failed to punish Mongol raids

[Yagnasri]

Not just us, I do not recollect reading about any " civilized" power attacking the barbur lands for punishment or in hot pursute. Though Ceasers Gallic war comes into mind for the loot it has given and I wonder if the Galli lands at that time are " barbaric" or painted as such by romans.

[ramana]

On this Republic Day I want to acknowledge Peter and Airavat for bringing many facts about Indian history which were obscured from us in schools.
Thank you both!!!!

ramana

[Yagnasri]

+1.

I used to consider myself as a history man and I do not know a looooot before reading them. Airavats blog is one of the best I have ready on Indian History. Vanram is another one. Jumboodweepa also doing great service. Also see eastern horison for serious stuff on Marata history. the paostings on 27 years war are classics.

[Lalmohan]

the romans regarded most of iberia and northern europe as barbarian lands. even after settling large parts of these lands and bringing roman 'civilisation' to them - gaul and iberia were fully occupied, but brittania north of hadrians wall and germania north of the rhine remained the realm of barbarians where roman armies would not go - because the economic returns from occupation were not worth while. the romans would undertake bloody expeditions on the barbarians and punish them severely. in brittania - after boudecea's revolt against roman rule was beaten off a final battle saw 10,000 romans fight 200,000 britons and slaughter 100,000 on the field for the loss of 400 legionnaires

[Rahul M]

he fails to mention that the rajputs gave a pretty tough fight for a long time, much more so than the byzantines.

Of that there is no doubt (otherwise the Indian demography would've been a drastically different one, given the Islamic doctrines).
But learning from the mistakes is equally important The first step is to unearth them and introspect.
I'm looking forward to some comments on the military-technical side. May be Airavat can pitch in.

Regards,
Virendra

we have discussed that in some detail in the recent past. check earlier pages of this thread. tarain I and II are covered as well.
Airavat ji even wrote up an ORBAT for tarain battles. it's there in his blog.

[Rahul M]

Not just us, I do not recollect reading about any " civilized" power attacking the barbur lands for punishment or in hot pursute. Though Ceasers Gallic war comes into mind for the loot it has given and I wonder if the Galli lands at that time are " barbaric" or painted as such by romans.

the difference being neither the gauls nor the germanics were able to muster large, highly mobile disciplined armies. most of the time the romans could vanquish a region a few villages at a time. only rarely did some charismatic leader able to bind them together in some loose alliance.

the turco-mongols in the era we are talking about were warrior societies, the complete adolescent and older male population lived and trained for war under a centralised military machine. as a resut they could throw large numbers of disciplined soldiers in a manner not possible in europe.

IMHO, it's a mistake to consider the turco-mongols as 'barbarians' when it came to warfare, they were as sophisticated as any and more adaptable than most (you can go through chengiz khan's campaigns to see this). it would have been far easier had they been 'barbarians' in the gaulic mold.

'hot pursuit' against such an enemy boils down to primarily one of logistics, there is no way you can cut off his logistics (because you have a less mobile army) while he can harass your supply lines almost at will.

[Lalmohan]

most mongol armies at the core did not have any logistics chain. its only when they started to incorporate chinese and persian combat engineering that they developed these problems

[Rahul M]

each soldier, or a group formed its own logistics chain, so to speak. get everything by foraging. each kept a small stack of tried meat IIRC.

use of siege engines had started in chengiz' campaign itself. incidentally, did the turks/mongols use siege engines in India ?

[Lalmohan]

strips of dried meat under the saddle (jerky), plus hard cheese and bladder sacks full of fermented mare's milk

[Yagnasri]

Please read the attached blog link about the battle of the Chillainwala

http://sowingseedsofthought.blogspot.co ... itish.html

[member_19686]

The infantry came the last as it was not counted of much value. The soldiers were armed with bucklers and swords. The foot archer does not seem to be a prominent feature of the Indian army in Harsha's days, though the riders on elephants usually used the bow and the arrow. Every prince and Rajput appears to have practised archery. Bana's description of Harsha, Rajya, Kumara, Madhava and others mentions their wrists and arms as blackened by the constant drawing of the bow.

Any reasons for this?

I mean for foot archers taking a back seat in armies while archery was practiced personally?

Gupta armies seem to have had a strong long bow archer contingent.

[Virendra]

The infantry came the last as it was not counted of much value. The soldiers were armed with bucklers and swords. The foot archer does not seem to be a prominent feature of the Indian army in Harsha's days, though the riders on elephants usually used the bow and the arrow. Every prince and Rajput appears to have practised archery. Bana's description of Harsha, Rajya, Kumara, Madhava and others mentions their wrists and arms as blackened by the constant drawing of the bow.

Any reasons for this?

I mean for foot archers taking a back seat in armies while archery was practiced personally?

Gupta armies seem to have had a strong long bow archer contingent.

Let me add two more questions to the list
Did the Gupta armies use foot archers against central asian nomadic invaders like Huns / Sycthians?
Did the central asian forces armour go through great improvements while north India switched from Gupta empire to the numerous Buddhist and Rajput Kingdoms?

Regards,
Virendra

[member_19686]

Yes they did use them against Huns, check (blue text in particular deals with the Hun invasion):

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... ssessment/

[Yagnasri]

The main contigent of Shathavahana army seems to be foot archers called - Dhanushkas and the record of Shatavahana empire speaks for itself. Guptas may have taken from there.

[peter]

Did the central asian forces armour go through great improvements while north India switched from Gupta empire to the numerous Buddhist and Rajput Kingdoms?

Regards,
Virendra

Do you think :
a) Buddhism had a negative effect on the psyche or the fighting ability of Indian kings?
b) Indian kings deteriorated technologically while central asians improved? If so what do you ascribe the reasons to? Buddhism?

[Virendra]

Do you think :
a) Buddhism had a negative effect on the psyche or the fighting ability of Indian kings?

Don't know with surity. But as Buddhism preaches non-violence astutely, may be Yes. It is possible that they fought but not as ferocisouly as required against the most brutal enemy. After all, Buddhist Kingdoms are the ones to be uprooted first, when waves of Islamic invasions started pouring in. They not only lost politically (even Rajputs and Deccan provinces had their share of failures) but also were swept out culturally. Possible reasons - Mass conversions and Slave trade.

b) Indian kings deteriorated technologically while central asians improved? If so what do you ascribe the reasons to? Buddhism?

In Archery it seems so. Those who developed and organized Cavalry in time were able to survive but what about archery.
My guess - Indian archery was used in stationary way at the same, age old, stagnant, monotonous methods of warfare in Indian kingdoms. But the alien central asian hordes came with lighting fast accurate horse archery. Indians didn't have this practice or anything else to answer it.
They could meet fire with fire at cavalry based close fighting, but what about cavalry archers?

Is there a way to contact Airavat? I'm unable to comment at his blog and there's no other gate open in public realm.
By the way I just placed my first order for history books (after school) ...
"Jodhpur Rajya ki Khyat" ~Raghuvir Singh : D K Publishers.

Regards,
Virendra

[peter]

Do you think :
a) Buddhism had a negative effect on the psyche or the fighting ability of Indian kings?

Don't know with surity. But as Buddhism preaches non-violence astutely, may be Yes. It is possible that they fought but not as ferocisouly as required against the most brutal enemy. After all, Buddhist Kingdoms are the ones to be uprooted first, when waves of Islamic invasions started pouring in.

And the examples of those are?

They not only lost politically (even Rajputs and Deccan provinces had their share of failures) but also were swept out culturally. Possible reasons - Mass conversions and Slave trade.

The reason Buddhism was wiped out in India is not mass conversions rather it is the destruction of their "nucleus" at Nalanda. Unlike Hinduism where there is no "center" Buddhism had its nucleus at Nalanda and most all professors were killed and the university destroyed. Some escaped to Tibet and other parts with their manuscripts.

b) Indian kings deteriorated technologically while central asians improved? If so what do you ascribe the reasons to? Buddhism?

In Archery it seems so.

Not quite. Please do read this http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 76#p914676

By the way I just placed my first order for history books (after school) ...
"Jodhpur Rajya ki Khyat" ~Raghuvir Singh : D K Publishers.

Regards,
Virendra

Excellent! But you will need to know Dingal well to read this book. If you are interested in History of Marwar try "Marwar ka Itihaas" by Reu. It is in Hindi and much more readable.

[Virendra]

And the examples of those are?

The Palas at Gandhar and Kamboja. Although their destruction in NW India cannot be credited to Islamic invasions solely. There were Hindu Kingdoms on rise as well.
Basically when Islam arrived at the scene, socio-politically there was a wrestling and gradual transition going on between Hindu and Buddhist influence.
Sind's civilian subjects under Dahir were a considerable mix of Hindus and Buddhists. Qasim's invasion spree involved conversion of Buddhist stupas to mosques such as at Nerun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of ... chimmel-26

Quoting from Wiki:

Considerable controversy exists both in scholarly and public opinion about the conversions to Islam typically represented by the following schools of thought:[6]
1.That the bulk of Muslims are descendants of migrants from the Iranian plateau or Arabs.[7]
2.That Muslims sought conversion through jihad or political violence[6]
3.A related view is that conversions occurred for non-religious reasons of pragmatism and patronage such as social mobility among the Muslim ruling elite or for relief from taxes[6][7]
4.Conversion was a result of the actions of Sufi saints and involved a genuine change of heart[6]
5.Conversion came from Buddhists and the en masse conversions of lower castes for social liberation and as a rejection of oppressive existent Hindu caste structures.[7]
6.Was a combination, initially made under duress followed by a genuine change of heart[6]
7.As a socio-cultural process of diffusion and integration over an extended period of time into the sphere of the dominant Muslim civilisation and global polity at large

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests_in_India

The reason Buddhism was wiped out in India is not mass conversions rather it is the destruction of their "nucleus" at Nalanda.

Of course Nalanda was a major centere but not the only one and surely the centres were destroyed along with prominent monks, but how would it happen if the Buddhist political-military power hadn't been destroyed already?
What stopped the remaining people from practicing Buddhism? The patronage had died.
What remained was Hindu Kingdoms, increasingly rigid caste system, sufi and bhakti movements.
So I don't know what else could have happened to the buddhists who remained in India, if not:
a) a gradual assimilation into other streams wherever the political-military resistance was shown to Islamic hordes.
b) mass conversions wherever the invasions had completely taken the lands in control.
I may be wrong, correct me if I am.

Not quite. Please do read this http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 76#p914676

I went through it. It is the same debate - well built horse archery units existed in mainstream armies of India or did they not? Except one or two controversies, I don't see it.
What I don't get is, when Rajputs and others could have good horses bred and adapt to organized cavalry in close combat, why don't we see the same learning in horse archery? Was it too difficult or costly to train units in horse archey even after you have horses already? Was there scarcity of horses? Was there scarcity of men to mount them? Or just that motivation to train in this area was absent ?
You match the enemy in one area and not the other .. why?

Excellent! But you will need to know Dingal well to read this book. If you are interested in History of Marwar try "Marwar ka Itihaas" by Reu. It is in Hindi and much more readable.

Uh Oh, trouble !! looking at the title and all, I thought it would be a Hindi or translated version.

[ramana]

5.Conversion came from Buddhists and the en masse conversions of lower castes for social liberation and as a rejection of oppressive existent Hindu caste structures.

Looks like this didn't workout like that as Islamic society in India has its own social system between Ashraf and Ajalf and among the Ashraf between Arabic and non-Arabic.

[RamaY]

5.Conversion came from Buddhists and the en masse conversions of lower castes for social liberation and as a rejection of oppressive existent Hindu caste structures.

Ramanaji,

It could be completely different.

Quite a good number of Hindus went into Budhist path, who were later branded as shudras by the vedic hindus. Remember the Maurya story in Chanakya thread?

That would upset this 'Dalit' apple cart.

[Yagnasri]

I guess any horse archery unit may have to be professional one with years of training to create and regular training to maintain. So only the kingdoms which can incur such expenditure can have them. Even then depending on exports and local revenue these kingdoms also may have only limited no of units with them. The Turks on the other hand do not have any revenue constrains as they are mainly loot based gang and have their own horses. Cost is not a problem for bandit gangs as they do not have any responsibility to run and kingdom. I think the horse archers and others in the Turk armies is gathered for and paid from the loot.

[Lalmohan]

for central asian nomads (and later north american nomads) horses and archery was a way of life. children grew up in the saddle and learning to hunt with the bow. agrarian societies have to learn this skill separately and devote resources specifically. what the mongols under genghiz (and their offshoots) learnt was to marshall this natural lethal weapon into organised battle units and cohesive armies - that fought in formation (and not random melee) and was able to move rapidly and concentrate force against more powerful but static enemies. for the iranians, chinese, russians and later the indians and arabs and other europeans of the period, there was little to counter this form of warfare for many decades - by which time most had been trampled under the hooves of the central asian ponies